Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the HIV care continuum: a mixed methods systematic review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this systematic review is to synthesize evidence on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the HIV care continuum for persons living with or at risk of living with HIV. INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic affected the self-management and care of people living with HIV. Self-regulation to acquire recurring treatment for HIV is essential for managing symptoms as well as viral suppression. Therefore, this review will systematically appraise and synthesize primary literature on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on all phases of the HCC for people living with, or at risk of acquiring, HIV. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This systematic review will include quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods studies. The search will be limited to studies reporting findings from March 2020. Selected studies must focus on one or more steps of the HIV care continuum, which are diagnosis of HIV infection, linkage to care, retention in care, adherence to antiretroviral therapy, and viral suppression. There are no age, gender, or geographic location restrictions for this review. Studies that examined the impact on other diseases as well as HIV will be included only if the data for HIV can be extracted separately. METHODS: The JBI methodology for convergent integrated mixed methods systematic reviews will guide this review. The following databases will be searched: MEDLINE (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), CAB Direct, and Embase. Articles will be screened by 2 independent reviewers. In the case of a disagreement between reviewers, a third independent reviewer will resolve the conflict. Articles will be appraised for methodological quality and their data extracted using an original extraction tool created for the study's purpose. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD42021285677.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.285 | 0.566 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".